[draft:]

Bolt.
Dec 22/59

I will th^k y / write a l^r to M^r Pretsch [G^t Portl^d S^t] saying 1. M^r T. ackn^s rec^t of M^r P's l^r of Dec 21
2. M^r T. stated several m^ths ago on what terms he w^d give a lic^s to M^r P. but he never rec^d any reply whatever to that commⁿ He had long ago come to the conclusⁿ that the terms were unaccept^le to M^r P.
3. But f^m M^r Ps l^r now rec^d it appears that M^r P he wishes for a lic^se but with an alterⁿ in the terms of it.
4. M^r T. cannot consent to alter the terms
5. M^r T. believes his own process to be much superior to any other conseq^ly he will not consent to join adopt any other process conjointly w^th his own
6. In reply to M^r Pretsch's questⁿ M^r T. w^d consider any process to be an inf^gt of his own, which employed bichr. pot. in conjⁿ with gelatine

[expanded version:]

Bolton
22 December 1859

I will thank you to write a letter to M^r Pretsch ^<1> [Great Portland Street] saying1. M^r Talbot acknowledges receipt of M^r Pretsch's letter of December 21
2. M^r Talbot stated several months ago on what terms he would give a licence ^<2> to M^r Pretsch but he never received any reply whatever to that communication He therefore had long ago come to the conclusion that the terms were unacceptable to M^r Pretsch.
3. But from M^r Pretsch's letter now received it appears that M^r Pretsch he wishes for a licence but with an alteration in the terms of it.
4. M^r Talbot cannot consent to alter the terms
5. M^r Talbot believes his own process ^<3> to be much superior to any other consequently he will not consent to join adopt any other process conjointly with his own
6. In reply to M^r Pretsch's question M^r Talbot would consider any process to be an infringement of his own, which employed bichromate of potassium in conjunction with gelatine

---

Notes:

1. The Patent Photo-Galvanographic Company (commonly, The Photogalvanographic Company) was based on the work of Paul Pretsch (1808¨C1873), Austrian photographer & inventor and former Manager of the Imperial Printing Establishment in Vienna. Located in Holloway Road, Islington, London, from 1856-1857, Pretsch took over as manager and Roger Fenton (1819-1869), photographer & lawyer, was a partner and their chief photographer. Starting in late 1856, they published a serial portfolio, Photographic Art Treasures, or Nature and Art Illustrated by Art and Nature, illustratated with photogalvanographs derived from several photographer's works. Photogalvanography was uncomfortably closely based on elements of WHFT's patented 1852 Photographic Engraving but, unlike Talbot, the plates were heavily retouched by hand. Compounding the legal objections of Talbot, their former manager, Duncan Campbell Dallas, set up a competing company to produce the Dallastype. The company collapsed and near the end of 1860 Pretsch, out of money, allowed his patent to lapse. A public appeal was launched in 1861 to assist him but he returned to Vienna in 1863 in ill health, going back to the Imperial Printing Establishment, but finally succumbing to cholera.

2. To use the Photoglyphic Engraving process ¨C [Patent No. 875 of 21 April 1858]. This was an improvement on Talbot's original method of transferring a photographic image on to an engraving plate by means of gelatine and potassium bichromate: Improvements in the Art of Engraving, Patent No. 565 of 29 October 1852. [For a description of this process, see H. J. P. Arnold, William Henry Fox Talbot: Pioneer of Photography and Man of Science (London: Hutchinson Benham, 1977), pp. 273-274.]

3. Photoglyphic Engraving. The first part of Pretsch's process used gelatine and potassium bichromate, but the second part involved the electrotype process.